Re: [asa] How big a deal is homology?

>> At some point, given an orthodox understanding of God's
>> sovereignty, it seems to me that the distinction between
>> "progressive creation" and "creation by evolution" becomes
>> meaningless.

I actually agree with David's comment here. I argue that everything
is designed. Of course, ID people don't like this, because (#1) they
seem to think that the evolutionary process acts autonomously of God,
(#2) it's not ID if it can be explained by evolution (if an
evolutionary explanation exists then it's off the table as being
"intelligent"; cf. Behe's response to my arguments about hemoglobin
evolution), and (#3) it takes away from their apologetic agenda.

At the same time, I don't think I'm saying the same thing as Darwin
(as Michael suggested)

> This is exactly the point Darwin made in his 1844 draft;
>
> I must premise that, according to the view ordinarily
> received, the myriads of organisms, which have during past and
> present times peopled this world, have been created by so many
> distinct acts of creation. . That all the organisms of this world
> have been produced on a scheme is certain from their general
> affinities; and if this scheme can be shown to be the same with
> that which would result from allied organic beings descending from
> common stocks, it becomes highly improbable that they have been
> separately created by individual acts of the will of a Creator. For
> as well might it be said that, although the planets move in courses
> conformably to the law of gravity, yet we ought to attribute the
> course of each planet to the individual act of the will of the
> Creator.[1]

In the last sentence, I think Darwin is saying that since we can
attribute the motion of the planets to graviity that it's silly to
attribute the course of each planet to the act of the will of the
Creator. In other words, Darwin's a deist wrt planetary motion. I'm
not. God is as actively involved in sustaining the motion of the
planets (and in creating individuals and individual species) whether
it's using the secondary cause of gravity (or variation + natural
selection) or by some miraculous unexplained means. I think Darwin
becomes a deist with respect to origins as well. This solves the
theodicy problem for Darwin which is a serious issue for him, i.e. it
makes God once removed from the waste, violence, extinction, etc. of
the biological world.

Our artist or engineer or computer programmer analogies fall short
because, unlike God, we don't sustain and govern the being of the
materials that we design from. There is a very real Creator/Creature
discontinuity here.

Cigars are welcome--mailing address is below.

TG

On Mar 28, 2007, at 8:22 AM, Janice Matchett wrote:

> At 09:52 AM 3/28/2007, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
>> At some point, given an orthodox understanding of God's
>> sovereignty, it seems to me that the distinction between
>> "progressive creation" and "creation by evolution" becomes
>> meaningless.
>
> @ If you smoked cigars, I'd send you one of mine. :)
>
> ~ Janice
>
>

________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Mar 28 11:17:17 2007